Comedians regularly question the intelligence of President George W. Bush. What many don’t realize is that Bush actually got better grades in college than either of the Democratic candidates he ran against for president.

Recent comments by Barack Obama indicate the Democrats are once again planning to nominate someone who is less intelligent than Bush.

Obama is so ignorant he thinks Iran poses no threat to world peace because it is a “tiny nation”.

Estimates of Iran’s current population range from 65 to 70 million with 24 million males between the ages of 15 and 64 with the population concentrated at the younger end. With it’s oil wealth, Iran could finance a very large army. The total population is comparable to the populations of Germany and Japan when those nations began their attempts to conquer the world that produced World War II.

Japan temporarily conquered the more populous China as well as the South Pacific islands. Germany temporarily conquered Europe from the French coast to well inside the much larger Soviet Union. Adolph Hitler may not have established his 1,000 year Reich, but his actions resulted in millions of deaths and destruction of most of Europe, including England.

Iran wouldn’t need to attempt to build an empire to substantially disrupt the world. If Iran develops nuclear weapons it could start a nuclear war that would destroy the Middle East.

Israel an even tinier nation, with a tenth of Iran’s population, already possesses nuclear weapons. Because of Israel’s small size it would need to develop a first strike capability if Iran acquired nuclear weapons.

It wouldn’t take very many nukes to destroy Israel. To avoid destruction, Israel would need to anticipate a potential Iranian attack and destroy Iran’s missiles/planes before Iran could launch any attack. And, if Israel guessed wrong and Iran hadn’t planned any attack…well they are only “tiny nations”.

Incidentally. I am working on a novel dealing with a nuclear war in the Middle East on a parallel earth.

Perhaps Obama is smarter than he appears. Maybe he is just too immature to consider the long term consequences of actions. In either case, his election could be a prelude to disaster.

Unless some other candidate enters the race I will be voting for you in November. However, that is only because neither of the likely Democratic candidates has the experience to be the nation’s Chief Executive Officer. Your acceptance of the nonsense about purported “global warming”, which Meteorologist John Coleman calls “the greatest scam in history”, indicates a level of gullibility that is undesirable in presidents.

I can understand how American leaders would believe that Saddam Hussein still had significant amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hussein had used such weapons in the past and there was no evidence he had destroyed them. U.N. inspectors discovered unloaded nerve gas shells shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

However, there is no evidence for “global warming”. There is no evidence of any significant temperature change other than the normal rise and fall of temperatures over time. The earth has warm years and cool years, warm decades and cool decades. The process that is supposed to produce global warming is physically impossible.

Those who claim the existence of global warming admit that temperatures only changed by 1 F or 0.17% during the entire 20th Century. A one degree variation is insignificant considering that daily temperatures fluctuate by 20 – 30 F and by over 100 F from winter to summer in temperate areas during the year. The passage of a strong cold front can drop temperatures by 30 F in a matter of hours.

A one degree change over a century could easily be explained by differences in equipment or changes in the locations where the equipment is located. Today’s equipment is of questionable reliability. Many sites have characteristics that artificially produce higher temperatures.

Temperature varies by more than one degree in different parts of my yard. Temperatures went up and down during the 20th Century and have declined since 1998. The concept of a global average temperature itself is of questionable value.

Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that infrared radiation (IR) from the surface heated the atmosphere, but Fourier also believed that star light could heat the earth. He believed that gas molecules converted the radiation into heat. Niels Bohr demonstrated in his Nobel Prize winning research that absorption of specific wavelengths of light by gas molecules changed the energy state of their electrons rather than causing them to become hotter.

Land and water heat the air by conduction rather than radiation. 70% of the earth’s surface is water which is a very poor radiator anyway. Supporters of global warming have failed to provide any evidence that the low energy radiation produced by earth’s surface can heat anything.

Those who believe in global warming claim that it is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) trapping a small range of IR. However, physicist R.W. Wood, who invented IR photography, demonstrated in 1909 that the process of trapping IR didn’t cause greenhouses to stay warm. Instead they stayed warm because they trapped heated air which doesn’t readily lose heat energy by converting it into radiation. His experiment used solid barriers to trap IR. CO2 is less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere and is hardly capable of trapping IR the way the solid barriers Wood used could.

Ferenc Miskolczi resigned in protest from NASA after it suppressed a study indicating that the equations used to show CO2 would cause substantial global warming contained a serious flaw that rendered the equations invalid. His corrected equations show no warming.

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner in their essay “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics” argue that the process global warming believers talk about would be a perpetual motion machine that physicists claim would violate the laws of physics.

The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual “lynching” of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word “uppity” to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn’t use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because “Mr. Wright” has “said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks” and “he suggested that America was guilty of ‘terrorism’ and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.”

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don’t believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter’s mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today’s editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It’s clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama’s bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I’m not concerned about Barack Obama’s pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama’s newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama’s drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

I don’t believe either the myth that government might have created HIV or that there are greenhouse gases capable of controlling air temperatures. I find it interesting that some of those who are so gullible that they believe strongly in the greenhouse effect are highly critical of those who believe there is some type of HIV conspiracy. The HIV conspiracy is at least plausible. The greenhouse effect is impossible.

I think that those who believe in some type of HIV conspiracy have watched too many James Bond type movies. However, I recognize that one goal of biological weapons research, such as the United States once conducted, is to develop pathogens that could infect humans. Some scientists speculate that those of European ancestry are less susceptible to the HIV virus because they have the GC-2 gene variation instead of the GC-1 variation that is more common among those of African ancestry. Racists or those concerned about overpopulation might concievably be willing to release such a virus into the population. If Adolph Hitler had developed a virus that would have been more likely to target non-Aryans, he would have released it.

I’m only arguing that a conspiracy is possible not that it exists. I’m not sure that medical knowledge was sufficient prior to 1980 to allow development of a virus capable of targeting broad genetic groups. Viruses (such as various forms of the “flu”) capable of killing thousands sometimes seem to appear suddenly. The similarity of HIV to a comparable chimpanze virus indicates that humans could have acquired the virus from a chimpanze by eating an infected one or possibly having sex with it. (Note: a resident of a nearby town is currently facing charges of having sex with a dog.)

The claim that carbon dioxide can increase atmospheric temperature isn’t mathematically or scientifically possible. Even those who support the idea admit that the earth’s temperature only changed by 1 F (0.17%) during the entire 20th Century. Such a difference is extremely small considering that temperatures in many areas can vary by 20-30 F in a single 24-hour period. Some areas can see a 100 F difference or more between high summer temperatures and low winter temperatures.

The idea of CO2 causing global warming is based in part on a theoritcal model called a black body model that doesn’t apply to earth.

CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. That means other molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by over 2,500 to 1 making it extremely difficult for CO2 to heat the rest of the atmosphere.

The sparse distribution of CO2 would leave huge gaps between CO2 molecules for the limited range of infrared radiation CO2 interacts with to pass through.

Physicist Niels Bohr received a Nobel Prize for his research indicating that gas atoms/molecules don’t become hotter after absorbing radiation. The only affect was a change in the energy state of the electrons. In order to absorb additional radiation in a specific wavelength, a atom/molecule would first have to emit radiation in that wavelength.

Bohr’s research indicated that molecules absorbed and reemitted radiation in quantum amounts. Thus, absorption of IR radiation by CO2 molecules would break up IR radiation into quantum sized units instead of trapping it.

Physicist R.W. Wood demonstrated in 1909 that greenhouses didn’t become warmer by trapping IR radiation. Natural sources of radiation convert only a small portion of the heat energy they possess to radiation at any one time. The ground and water don’t emit enough radiation to heat air that is the same temperature.

The editor of the Hutchinson (Kansas) News says “Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up” in an April 30 editorial.

Barack Obama’s supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate’s chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright’s church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times( April 30) criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on “sin” since biblical times.

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs.

My father believed the rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe in World War II. I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America has a long tradition of belief in conspiracies. Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers. I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright’s statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times. Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins. I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King’s statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that he had a duty to speak out against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong. If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom, we must allow them to continue to do so even if we disagree with them.

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama not Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No one held a gun to Obama’s head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years. If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama’s behaviior is scary in someone who wants to be president. Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency. A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he’s elected.

Rev. Wright’s statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense.

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere. They believe this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments. They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature. Such a small change could indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.